DEAD BEATS

[Guest KF Quad Explorer]

ds and havent even hid one cache. If this sport is to continue we all need to do are part and hide a few caches. I believe its a two way street. If you find them, hide them. After 4 of 5 finds you should at least hide one. Thats just my two cents worth.

[Guest Quinnow]

I think we had this topic somewhere else in the forum, but anyways...

 

I think Those numbers you mentioned are a bit excessive for a find and hide ratio, but how do you come up with those numbers anyways? I have placed around 10 caches and found I think 12 as to date. But when i place them I also use other names or nicknames when I log them on the site. Is there some sort of search that you can do here that I don't know about that lets you see how many a person has placed?

Maybe they have placed some and have used other names as well?

I myself think its a bit out of whack but maybe if people were informed that though it is not required that maybe hiding a couple when you get up to that many finds would be helpful to the sport...hmmmm?

 

------------------

Quinn Stone

Rochester, NY.14616

www.Navicache.com

[Guest Ron Streeter]

KF..

 

One of the original threads on this topic is:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/000005.html

 

You may be interested in the ideas discussed there.

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Guest Ron Streeter]

KF....

 

At about 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time on 5/8/01, Jeremy posted an email to the list in which he indicates he is developing a page that (as I understand it) will allow a cacher to enter the name of another cacher and to then see a page similar to one's own personal cache page. That is, it will show the caches the OTHER cacher has placed and found.

 

The implications of this will address the issue of THIS thread...how many cache placements has a person done vs. caches found.

 

This will be an interesting new addition to the geocaching site.

 

If I misunderstand the content or approach of this new page, I'm sure Jeremy or another cacher will rectify the situation.

[Guest jeremy]

I will be adding this option. However - I may rethink it if folks cause some kind of backlash and attack cachers because they'd rather seek than hide.

 

Honestly, if the game becomes an obligation to place caches in order to find them, I'd rather shut down the site than make it into some kind of ratio game. If we went that way we'd end up with a lot of caches without any quality just so folks can feel like they're qualified to play.

 

Face it - some folks like to hide, some folks like to seek. Some like to do both. As long as you play within the base rules of the game and respect the outdoors, do what you like.

 

Jeremy

 

[This message has been edited by jeremy (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Guest jeremy]

Oops. The post from the mailing list said January. I was looking at KF Quad Explorer's registration date.

[Guest cache_ninja]

aw c'mon, isnt the title of this topic excessive? lets try to keep things positive.

besides, don't you get some joy from having people actually visit your caches

c/n

[Guest Ron Streeter]

As I respect Jeremy and what he has done for the site and the sport, I will not pursue my thoughts on the issue of a ratio for placements vs. finds beyond this post. I never really had in mind that anyone HAD to respect a certain ratio. I just felt that finding 12, 15, 20 or 30 and not placing any (or few) seemed out of line.

 

The fact is that people will do what they want. I guess what I was trying to do was get those people who found a lot but placed few, to think about how they were contributing to the sport.

 

As a result of my earlier efforts along these lines, a person who had found 14 or so and had placed none, went out and placed one, but then continued finding caches and now has I think 30 finds. Maybe the 15 to 1 ratio is appropriate for that person and perhaps he will place another cache soon. If he doesn't, he's in that "magic" 30 to one spot that several of us have mentioned.

 

I will continue to seek out new caches further from my home, but after placing 18 and finding 15, I will not be placing for awhile.

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Guest cavetoad]

Found: 2

Hid: 2

 

so far so good. I think fewer hid than found is ok, too many might be overwhelming in some areas. and besides if you go out and find them and tell your friends and they go out and find them, the viral nature of this game will always result in an imbalance of finders vs. placers.

[Guest makaio]

There is certainly no requirement to hide or seek. Some people may prefer seeking them and not hiding any. That's perfectly legitimate. Others may prefer hiding them to finding them. The more I find the more I tend to enjoy the hiding factor better. Takes more skill to hide one skillfully to find one, imo.

 

Regardless, to each their own and judging from Ed Hall's map...

 

http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/

 

There doesn't appear to be any shortage of caches.

[Guest KF Quad Explorer]

Jeremy, I dont want this site regulated in any way as to a required ratio, although I do believe that the ones that havent placed a cache after 30+ finds should get out and plant a cache. A 30-1 ratio is better than a 30-0 one. As to the comment about looking at the maps there seems to be alot of caches out there, yes there are, but a few more wouldnt hurt the sport any either, and I dont think us cachers would mind going out for some new guy cache...Also I like the idea of being able to view information of the cachers in your area. I think it might help in the learning your fellow geocacher.

[Guest Anton]

Greetings,

 

I really don't care whether people hide caches or not. Like Jeremy said, some like to seek, some like to hide, and some like to do both. But, I do get annoyed with cachers who take out more than they put into a cache.

 

And what's with these folks who do a major business deal every time, taking out 4-5 items and putting in 4-5 items...or sometimes less? And some of them even say as much in their cache logs. Amazing!

 

Let's keep it simple: 1 prize in & 1 prize out, per person. See, I AM good at math. I am NOT the weakest link!

 

Anton

 

------------------

Anton Ninno - N2RUD

Syracuse, NY 13210

[Guest makaio]

I agree, the more caches the merrier, providing there aren't so many as to constitute 'littering the landscape', so to speak. As for new caches, you might concentrate less on being first to find the new ones and more on pacing yourself so as not to run out of new caches to visit. At the rate they're coming in, if you search one weekend a month, you should never run out of new caches.

 

I started geocaching last September and have since found 13 and hidden 3, so my personal ratio isn't too bad.

 

btw, I grabbed your magnet from the Thurston Hills cache last week to add to the fridge collection. Thanks.

 

And I agree with Anton regarding swapping items. One per customer, please.

 

[This message has been edited by makaio (edited 08 May 2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by makaio (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Guest Quinnow]

Nah...I don't want to see people getting upset either about having to place caches due to finding too many (not that you can ever find too many) And I am not sure it's a good idea to be able to see other peoples stats like that. It's kind of like seeing the names of drunk drivers in the newspaper, does nothing more than make people feel uncomfortable about what they have or have not done. I think it would be a good idea to have maybe a page that would give a little push to get some people to try placing even one cache of quality, but I understand that some may have reasons that they dont place them, be it low on money or other reasons of sort. So I dont want to see anyone feel uncomfortable about how many they found. Is there a way we could have the option of maybe leaving it up to the Geocacher on if or not he wants his/her stats viewed?

It's those first steps that are tough as far as placing a cache. In my area once Gimpy placed his first he was hooked, now you'd have to smack him with a bat to get him to stop, same with about 4 others from this area. They found quite a few and once they started placing them the realized there was fun on both sides. I think we need to get more people to see that there is that fun on both sides, then all will be happy

 

------------------

Quinn Stone

Rochester, NY.14616

www.Navicache.com

 

[This message has been edited by Quinnow (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Guest Exaibachey]

I think there should be no hide/place ratio. This is a great sport and the cache placers and seekers thing will all work itself out. Many, many thanks to Jeremy for all of his tireless work and efforts. We don't need to be so petty as to assigning a ratio. This is a fantastic hobby and I personally look forward to it every day. Each and every sport takes all kinds, as does every thing we do on a daily basis. Lets just enjoy it for what it is.

 

Brad

 

[This message has been edited by Exaibachey (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Guest Silver]

I don't think a find/hide ratio would benifit the sport either. The first thought that came to mind was 'if you enjoy watching football, you should play yourself so other people could enjoy watching YOU play.' For every 20 games you watch, you must play a game yourself...

 

After reading last February's thread, the best quote I found was:

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nomad:

Caches should be placed because of inspiration rather than obligation!

---

 

I'm sure there are lots of caches still in the planning stages. I'm still doing the research on the history of the area where I'm planning on hiding my cache. I could drop a simple ziplock bag there tomorrow, but I feel a more thoughtful cache will be appreciated by other geocachers.

 

And even the person that has found 50 caches and placed none has given something to the community. He has logged 50 caches on the web site. He has given feedback on every one. He has taken an item and left an item. He has hopefully cleaned up the area and replaced the cache carefully. And I'm sure he has told other people about geocacheing!

 

Everyone gives something to the sport, whether they are a hider or a seeker.

 

Silver

[Guest Snowtrail]

I think it's unfair to have the ratio as well. I haven't technically hidden any caches, but I've relocated one (by request), and plan on doing it again. The ratio would not be able to recognize rehidden caches...

[Guest cache_only]

I'm with Jeremy and some of the other posters.

 

What is the magic ratio by which one must abide? If a person is finding and logging more than this ratio, is he to receive a notice from the moderators stating his log has been blocked due to an abnormally high found:hid ratio?

 

If this sport is really to catch on, the objective is to look at your state of residence on navicache.com so the state can be seen graphically. Look for a large area of the state where there is no cache. If you want to do your part for the good of the game, drive to that location and hide a cache.

 

This way, when John and Mary Doe open their morning paper to read of the sport and its website, they will check geocaching.com. If they plug in their zip and see no cache in their area, they will probably pass on the sport. If they happen to see one within a reasonable distance from their home, they *may* just go out and buy a GPS and give the sport a try.

 

I did this in Detroit. There were no caches in the city of Detroit proper. I hid two to correct the problem: one on the far east side and one on the far west side.

 

This gives city dwellers an opportunity to participate in the sport.

 

I also placed one on a military post (I'm in the Guard). Since the majority of posts are open to the public, this gives the public an opportunity to drive onto a military post and experience it, when they would otherwise find no reason to enter a military post. It's all about creating alliances.

 

If you want to do something worthwhile, hide one in an area where none exist. Don't just hide caches for the sake of hiding them.

 

Just my two cents as well,

Rob

[Guest cache_only]

Redundant message deleted.

 

[This message has been edited by cache_only (edited 09 May 2001).]

[Guest cache_only]

I do not kow how this got posted three times. Sorry. I tried to delete two of them but I get a message stating only the forum moderator can delete. So I had to do this.

 

Sorry again,

Rob

 

[This message has been edited by cache_only (edited 09 May 2001).]

[Guest KF Quad Explorer]

Who said anything about making a ratio stick? All I said was everyone needs to hide a cache once in a while, and after about 30 finds its probably about time to do it.

[Guest Ron Streeter]

cache_only....

 

Neither KF NOR I have promoted an acceptable or unacceptable "ratio" figure.

 

I have been trying to promote the idea that someone with "a lot" (open to interpretation) of finds and "a few or no" placements should at least look at what they are doing to enhance the sport for others. Yes, by finding they are contributing by posting their finds and comments, I am simply suggesting they place a few caches for others to find.

 

I think this is what KF is doing also, though if I am wrong, I apologize to him. I do not presume to speak for him.

 

Additionally, the person who has developed the state map program which shows where caches are placed is Ed Hall. He (as far as I know) is not connected with Geocaching.com or Navicache.com. Navicache has a LINK to Ed's program.

 

The map program can be seen at:

http://www.brillig.com/geocaching

 

I hope this is somewhat clarifying for you or any others who read this in regard to the "ratio" discussion.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 09 May 2001).]

[Guest Anton]

"Ratio, ratio, where for art thou, ratio?"

 

I never really understood fractions until I went back to school to become a teacher and began teaching 5th grade. With practice, and tutoring after school from my principal,

I was eventually able to multiply and divide fractions by myself, at the blackboard, in front of the whole class - my students.

 

"Ours is not to reason why, just invert and multiply!? they taught me to say aloud as I worked the chalk across the board.

 

Of course, it helped a lot to have a teacher's edition Texas Instruments "Math Explorer" calculator with fraction keys.

 

By the time I was teaching 6th grade, I had even mastered ratios and decimals. Eureka! My whole life changed overnight. I began to think in math sentences, apply number sense, make graphs for fun, write about math in my journal... Life was good.

 

My point? Well, as you can well understand, after all the effort I've made to improve my math skills, I'd like the opportunity to use them in real life...as a geocacher.

 

Bring on the ratios. I can handle it. Euclid is my inspiration! Erasthenes is my hero! Yo.

 

Anton, 5H/3F

 

------------------

Anton Ninno - N2RUD

Syracuse, NY 13210

[Guest Paul Lamble]

I'm not in favor of any rules about ratios, but if I were the king of the world, tell you what I'd do:

 

I'd make it a requirement that a person couldn't hide a cache until he/she had FOUND at least 10 caches (maybe 20). Why? Because I've seen some pretty pathetic caches (I've found 21 and hidden 3). Some were no more than a lunch box resting at the base of a tree. Not even an interesting tree. (One of mine does rest at the base of a tree, but it is an interesting tree in an interesting park.)

 

If you had to visit 10-20 caches first, at least a couple in that number would have been cleverly done. Then you would have an idea of how to make your own caches more interesting or challenging or worth the effort to find them. I don't mean that a cache should be impossibly difficult to find. But we could certainly use more caches that require a little problem solving to find, or that take us to impressive places or new parks, or that really feel like a reward to find.

 

Or do I just sound grumpy?

 

Paul Lamble

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Anton....

 

I especially like your post for the way you signed it....Anton 5H/3F. Now THAT has potential !

[Guest makaio]

I like your theory, Paul. As a carpenter (in a past life) we wished they'd make it a requirement that architects work in the field before giving them a license to design. You'd be amazed at how many incorrect (read impossible to build) blueprints are created.

 

Back to geocaching...here's a multi-stage cache I hid recently which requires seekers to visit key park locations (for the scenery) to gather clues which will eventually lead them to the cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=2203

 

I started geocaching in Sept 2000 and after hiding two simple caches early on, purposely waited until I had located many more before...key point here..."planning" my next cache planted some 7 months later. As you can tell, this one required lots of thought and many hours of hiking the park prior to actually placing the cache. I'm confident anyone who locates it will be thrilled with the scenery and genuinely proud of themselves for locating it.

[Guest Nemesis]

I agree with cache_only, we should try to fill up those empty spaces on the map. You will be surprised what new and interesting locations you discover there. This parallels my 'Minimum Distance Between Geocaches?' topic.

 

The others are right too, it's better to have fewer good quality geocaches than a whole heap of crappy ones (it's really a tradeoff, however).

 

BTW, some of my stashes look like lunch boxes... .

 

Cheers,

Donovan Govan.

[Guest cache_only]

New Zealand?????????

 

My goodness! I'm not visiting any of your caches. They're probably traps. I might be the entre for supper!

 

All in good fun,

Rob

[Guest Ron Streeter]

KF Quad...

 

Just saw a find you made in Northern California which shows you at 53 FINDS.

 

I did a seek on Oregon caches and found 4 hidden by KF Quad.

 

Considering the first post in this thread (contributed by you), I'm confused.

 

Have you in fact found 53 and placed 4?

 

Please enlighten me (us). Thanks.

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 11 May 2001).]

[Guest Gossamyrrh]

53 finds! I just got started, and only have 5 finds! (and three no-finds!)

[Guest KF Quad Explorer]

This is for Ron Streeter. Yes I do have 53 finds and if you would look more closely you would be able to count 11 caches that I have hidden. Thats a cache hid for every 4.81 finds. Sorry to blow your theory....

[Guest Ron Streeter]

KF...

 

Sorry to have given offense. You're right. Had I done a little more research I would have found your other 7 caches.

 

I guess I just was overwhelmed by your 53 finds !

 

As I said in other posts, I personally don't have any given ratio of finds/placements in mind, but like you I think 30 or more finds and zero or 1 placements is pushing the limit. Apparently your research shows some of the 30 to 1 folks.

 

I have seen a number of cachers in several of these forums indicating they are trying to maintain a 5 to 1 ratio.

 

So, as I said in my email to you, keep up the good work finding and placing, and again my apologies for any offense given or taken.

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 11 May 2001).]

[Guest Ron Streeter]

To all geocachers at large...

 

Regarding my flawed research on KF Quad's placements...

 

I just figured out why my research was flawed. Jeremy's new approach to listing files has them broken down in pages of about 25 entires each. One has to travel from one page to another now to see the continued list.

 

When I did a find on KF Quad it popped up the first 4 on the first page, but I failed to go on to the other pages and do finds on them. In the original configuration for such a search, all 100 or so of the Oregon caches would have come up on one long page and the FIND would have continued to find KF's other caches.

 

The new feature of listings has some other features as well in regard to how one's cache placements and cache finds relate to the overall list....worth checking out. The new features kick in also if you do a search on your zip code.

[Guest jeremy]

I've found it necessary to start listing 25 caches per page. It doesn't necessarily matter for states with less caches, but now that California now has over 250 I had to split them out a bit. It will eventually help with site performance as well.

 

Hopefully I'll have better ways of searching caches by user soon. I'm still concerned about giving out too much information (and the backlash as a result).

 

I suppose finding 30 caches and not hiding one is a bit excessive. After you hide one, however, I don't see any problem with not hiding any more, especially if you spend the time to continually check in on your cache.

 

Jeremy

[Guest Scout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Streeter:

When I did a find on KF Quad ...

---

 

OK. I give up. How do you do a find a "KF Quad". I can see how to do a search by ZIP, state, country, lat/lon, keyword, or waypoint. The obvious answer, keyword, seems to only return matches from the cache titles, not from the names of the hiders or the description of the cache.

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Scout....

 

Once you have any kind of page displayed on your screen, you can use your browser to "find" any text instance on the page.

 

So, first do a state or zip code search and let a list of caches pop-up on your screen. Then follow the rest of the instructions.

 

In MS Internet Explorer, go to "Edit", "find" and a dialogue box will pop up. Then enter the text you wish to find and it will search down the page which is currently displayed.

 

If (as in my recent case) you want to go on to another page, you have to go to the page then go through the edit, find sequence again.

 

I suspect that Netscape would have a similar feature.

 

The Edit, Find can be used in programs like Word, Excel, etc.

 

Hope my instructions are accurate and that it will work for you...let me know will you?

 

Thanks..Ron

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 11 May 2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 11 May 2001).]

[Guest Toby]

How about promoting a "Cacher's Tithe" policy? That is, for every 10 finds, hide a cache. That's easy enough for most people to remember and understand, and adopt the ethic.

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Toby...

 

That's an interesting idea (tithing)and you're right...easy to understand, easy to remember...now about that adopting part.

 

Still, I think it's a neat idea.

[Guest Scout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Streeter:

Once you have any kind of page displayed on your screen, you can use your browser to "find" any text instance on the page.

---

 

I infer that when you said you did a search on "KF Quad" what you meant is that you did a search on "KF Quad" among the Oregon caches. Not only did you miss all the caches after the first page of 25, but you missed any caches KF Quad might have hidden in, say, Washington or California or South Africa, for that matter.

 

Nothing wrong with that. It just confirms my experience that you can't conveniently search the entire database for geocachers' names or keywords in the descriptions of caches or keywords in finders' log entries. All of these would be nice, IMO.

 

But this raises the question of how others seem to have access to the entire database to create such things are maps of geocache locations. How do they do that???

 

[This message has been edited by Scout (edited 11 May 2001).]

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Scout...

 

I think we are on the same wavelength.

 

An initial SEARCH in geocaching followed by a FIND using a browser gives one a bit of a view of the geocaching database, but it is certainly not a full-blown search/find capability.

 

Jeremy spoke to this issue in this very thread and his concerns are valid ones.

Harry Truman said "The buck stops here." and Jeremy is in the unenviable position of making decisions that have impact on the site and the sport. (Well, he can always "call back" a feature that doesn't work out....Truman couldn't call back the atomic bombs that were dropped...but he didn't use them in Korea a decade later !)

 

But, I digress....yes, I am aware that neither I (nor anyone else at our level) can do an easy look at how many caches a person has found or placed. Even I am not so gung-ho as to do a state-by-state search to ferret out that kind of info.

 

As to your ? about the mapping program folks. Best bet is to ask them, but initially I think those folks were simply manually imputting data into their map programs. A text file list of coords would probably be easy enough to load into such a program, IF you had the full list to work with. Putting in the coords (by hand)for over 2000 caches would be quite a task.

 

BTW...DID you find the "find" approach to work for you in your browser?

 

regards....ron

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 11 May 2001).]

[Guest Scout]

Ron...

 

Yikes! geocaching Web site decisions likened to Truman's decision to the drop the bomb! Don't put too much pressure on jeremy, now.

 

jeremy did say he was going to improve the search capabilities on the site. I'm willing to be patient.

 

I assumed the mapping folk didn't painstakingly enter coordinates manually or try to keep them up-to-date manually. On the other hand, I've never seen any way to get the kind of access to the database that an outsider would need to do it automatically.

 

Yes, I can use my browser's "find" function on initial search results to get by in the meantime.

[Guest Nemesis]

hide stashes. I have my own motivations for hiding, but everyone should try it anyway, you will be surprised how rewarding it is.

 

I think the number who find will always be greater than the number who hide, simply because each stash will be found more than once in its lifetime (on average). Does this really matter, I don't think so.

 

Now, get out there and hide more stashes .

 

Cheers,

Donovan Govan.

[Guest Bufford]

To cache or not to cache, that is the question. I think, that as in all things, there should be a balance. Ratios? Of course not but a person should place caches as a way of thanking those who have put out the caches you've enjoyed finding. Many or most of us do enjoy the hunt and it's always fun to find a new cache placed in our area.

I know in this area searching for caches has taken me to some beautiful places I never knew existed so close to home and that's half the fun. As such, when I place a cache, I try to put them in areas that I enjoy as a way of sharing those spots with fellow cachers. It's a two-way street my friends, to receive one should give also.

[Guest logscaler]

Just a fast question. In these areas with the "dead beats ", are there a lot of caches already ? Or are they just waiting for others to plant for their enjoyment(plundering) ? At least they could pool the plunder and use that in a cache if they can not afford their on booty. In the area I am working with, not many caches within 100 mile radius so I have planted 4 while only finding 3. But, for myself, I like hiding a little more then finding. To me, my caches are for the "game" and not for the "prize". So if you look for my caches, do not expect tons of goodies. Oh I have been stopping at the locals pizza parlors and Dairy Queens for donations to the kitty. It worked and in one cache is a free small pizza, a free ice cream cake, a two for one ice cream treat and a free meal. Try and see if your area merchants will do the same. Just a thought. Do not get me wrong, if I get a chance, I will be looking to find but I will carry two or three cache container to plant. Oh, would bumper stickers help anyJ. If you seen a bumper sticker on a rig you could choose to leave or not. Just some thoughts. TTFN

[Guest Anton]

Ratings, ratios, research, rhetoric...

 

I've been thinking about going back to school, again, and picking up another graduate degree - this time in geocaching. Let's see, where would I find an institution of higher learning with a department of gecoaching. Hmmm...

 

Oh! Sure, that't it. California! My research indicates that CA has 381 caches (8 PM-EST on 5/12/01), leading the country in geocaching. My own state, New York, appears to be runner-up with 199. Rosemary, call Pepperdine. Tell 'em I'm coming over.

 

Anton, 6H/3F

 

------------------

Anton Ninno - N2RUD

Syracuse, NY 13210

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 12 May 2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 12 May 2001).]

[Guest Buxley]

Hmmmm, "deadbeats". What an ugly word.

 

Interestingly, here in California, we have some cachers who, after finding a geocache, drop off another cache a short distance away. Often these caches are placed literally on the way back to the car.

 

Ironically, these are often the same people who complain when others have been able to find a lot more caches than them--it's just not that hard to do when the caches are 1/4 mile (or less!) from one another!

 

Don't get me wrong, with 290 caches in California, it's getting more and more difficult to place a cache a good distance away from others. But there's a world of difference between caches that are a mile or two apart and caches that are only hundreds of feet apart.

 

When I visit someplace that has multiple caches placed within it, I always make a point of going to the cache that has been there the longest. After that, if time permits, I'll look for any other caches that might be nearby. This just seems the most fair for the geocachers that took the time to find a cool, new park in which to place a cache.

 

Anyway this isn't really meant as a flame, although I realize that some may take it that way. Rather I'm just trying to point out why someone who places caches near other caches is almost mathematically guaranteed to have about half as many finds as other cachers in the area.

 

Buxley, 4H/33F

[Guest Quinnow]

Ed...actually I was going to go out and find one today, then on my way back to the car I thought of drop kicking one and where it landed is where I was going to take my coodinate readings The cache was going to be an empty milk container with a picture of a lost Geocacher on the side of it.

For people that don't seem to realize this...a JOKE!

 

------------------

Quinn Stone

Rochester, NY.14616

www.Navicache.com

[Guest Buxley]

Heh. Hate to tell ya Quinn, but it's been done.

[Guest Anton]

Catchers/Flyers :: Cachers/Finders

 

The analogy to trapeze artists in a circus might work here: some are flyers; and some are catchers. In geocaching, some players are finders, and some are catchers. You can't find/fly, if there's no cache/catcher. See? So it's not about who does what. It's about doing what you do best. It's a yin-yang, a win-win, a gestalt. Find your niche, er...cache.

 

Anton

 

------------------

Anton Ninno - N2RUD

Syracuse, NY 13210

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 12 May 2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 12 May 2001).]

[Guest wtmrn]

ut in my two cents worth, I was under the impression that the reason we place a cache is to share a special place with our fellow geocachers, at least thats how I interpret the how

to place a cache section on this site. just to play devil's advocate, maybe some people don't know any special places, therefore it is our moral imperative to enrich the lives of these less fortunate individuals. And for those that are counting, my ratio is 79 found and 5 placed. Each of my caches are special in some way. I do highlyagree that there are a number of low quality/intrest caches out there, some even without space to takeor leave anything, some in less than adequate containers that won't survive the rigors ofthe seasons. Caches should be well thought out in regards to will they survive, will they have a negative impact on the surrounding environment and last but not least what are we sharing with our fellow cachers, but thats just my opinion- wtmrn